Gandhi on Youtube

Gandhiji and Religion (Part-2) By JB Kripalani He believed in God but for him God was the moral law, dharma. He therefore considered that all those who believed in the moral law were spiritual even though they were so-called atheists. He says that “Truth is God”. “To me God is Truth and Love; God is ethics and morality; God is fearlessness. God is the source of Light and Life and yet He is above and beyond all these.” Again he says: “There can be no manner of doubt that this universe of sentient beings is governed by a Law. If you can think of Law without its Giver, I would say that the Law is the Lawgiver, that is God. When we pray to the Law, we simply yearn after knowing the Law and obeying it. We become what we yearn after.” He uttered Rama nama though he made it clear that Rama of his conception was not the husband of Sita or the son of Dasharatha but he who abides in the hearts of men, the Antaryami. However, like the prophets of old, he did not confuse the minds of the ordinary man and woman to whom Rama and Krishna are the Supreme Beings even though they took upon themselves a human form and worked for the establishment of righteousness, dharma and the destruction of adharma. For himself he believed in a formless and attributeless God. He frankly admits that existence of God cannot be proved by reason though it is not against reason. Even if he could not prove His existence by rational arguments which may not convince, he felt it within himself. He says: “There is an indefinable mysterious Power that pervades everything. I feel it, though I do not see it. It is this unseen Power which makes itself felt and yet defies all proof, because it is so unlike all that I perceive through my senses. It transcends the senses. But it is possible to reason out the existence of God to a limited extent. “I do dimly perceive that whilst everything around me is everchanging, ever-dying, there is underlying all that change a Living Power that is changeless, that holds all together, that creates, dissolves, and recreates. That informing Power or Spirit is God. And since nothing else I see merely through the senses can or will persist, He alone is. “And is this Power benevolent or malevolent ? I see it as purely benevolent. For I can see that in the midst of death life persists, in the midst of untruth truth persists, in the midst of darkness light persists. Hence I gather that God is Life, Truth, Light. He is Love, He is the Supreme God,” The great saints and sages of all ages and climes have believed in God and their unbiased evidence kept before us through their life and work must, he held, be conclusive. Believing in God, Gandhiji had great faith in prayer. Morning and evening there were prayers in the Ashram. When he was on tour, the evening prayers were performed in public before ever increasing congregations. In this prayer no image or symbol was kept. He did not believe in image worship for himself but he had no objection to it for those who needed such symbols. He says: “I do not disbelieve in idol worship. An idol does not excite any feeling of veneration in me. But I think that idol worship is part of human nature. We hanker after symbolism. I do not forbid the use of images in prayer, I only prefer the worship of the Formless. This preference is perhaps improper. One thing suits one man; another thing will suit another man, and no comparison can fairly be made between the two.” His prayers were not petitions. They were in praise of God and they were the yearnings of the soul. They also were meant to strengthen man and keep him away from earthly temptations. He says: “The prayer has saved my life. Without it, I should have been a lunatic long ago. I had my share of the bitterest public and private experiences. They threw me in temporary despair. If I was able to get rid of that despair, it was because of prayer. It has not been a part of my life as truth has been. It came out of sheer necessity, as I found myself in a plight where I could not possibly be happy without it. And as time went on, my faith in God increased, and more irresistible became the yearning for prayer. Life seemed to be dull and vacant without it. I had attended the Christian service in South Africa, but it had failed to grip me. I could not join them in it. They supplicated God, I could not; I failed egregiously. I started with disbelief in God and prayer, and until at a late stage in life I did not feel anything like a void in life. But at that stage, I felt that as food is indispensable for the body, so was prayer indispensable for the soul. In fact, food for the body is not so necessary as prayer for the soul. For starvation is often necessary to keep the body in health, but there is no such thing as prayer starvation. You cannot possibly have a surfeit of prayer. Three of the greatest teachers of the world Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad have left unimpeachable testimony, that they found illumination through prayer and could not possibly live without it. Millions of Hindus, Mussulmans and Christians find their only solace in life in prayer. Either you call them liars or self-deluded people. I will say that this ‘lying’ has a charm for me, a truth-seeker, if it is ‘lying’ that has given me that mainstay or staff of life without which I could not live for a moment. In spite of despair staring me in the face on the political horizon, I have never lost my peace. In fact, I have found people who envy my peace. That peace comes from prayer. I am not a man of learning, but I humbly claim to be a man of prayer. I am indifferent as to the form. Everyone is a law unto himself in that respect. But there are some well-marked roads, and it is safe to walk along the beaten tracks, trodden by the ancient teachers. I have given my personal testimony. Let everyone try and find that as a result of daily prayer he adds something new to his life.” Never in his prayer-meetings was any patriotic song sung. Good and desirable as love of one’s country may be, it was not the love of God. His prayer-meetings were also occasions for him to take the public into confidence about what was happening in the councils of the great, whether in the national organisation or in the Government. He took them into confidence to the extent that was permissible and desirable. He did this because he wanted from the people enlightened co-operation in the national struggle which was not only meant to remove the foreign yoke but was also meant for their political, economic, social and, above all, their moral advancement. He often said that to the extent India was reformed, it would be free. A reformed India would be a free India. Gandhiji believed in self-discipline. He felt that his own personal progress and all that he had been able to achieve was because he lived a life of discipline. He held with the Gita, “To him who is temperate in eating and recreation, in his effort for work, and in his sleep and wakefulness, Yoga becomes the destroyer of his misery.”* He believed in occasional fasting. He thought it helped in the concentration of mind. Apart from this he held that fasting had purificatory effect. Sometimes he fasted for the moral lapses of those who lived or worked with him, because he considered himself responsible for their conduct. Any misbehaviour on their part was a proof of some imperfection in him. As he became purer his surroundings would, he thought, adequately respond to the change. He believed in taking and keeping vows. He thought that their proper observance strengthened the will. However, there is the danger, the present writer feels, that vows taken and broken repeatedly weaken the will and its power of resistance to evil. We have said that Gandhiji’s life was well-regulated. Buthe was not a flesh-mortifying ascetic. Believing in the philosophy of karmayoga, right action, he could not afford to impair his health by the mortification of the flesh as is done by some ascetics. The restrictions in diet that he placed upon himself were due to circumstances. His vow not to take more than five varieties of food a day was taken because wherever he went, generous and hospitable hosts served him various rich and luxurious dishes. That his kind hosts may not put themselves to extra trouble on his account and to avoid waste in a poor country like India, and not for ascetic reasons, he put the above restriction on himself. He also felt that increasing one’s wants beyond a particular limit, instead of benefiting an individual, became a burden on him. Gandhiji had a good appetite and whatever food he took at the time was healthy and pure. He took time to eat the food and seemed to enjoy it. If a person fell ill in the Ashram, everything prescribed for him by the doctor was made available, whatever the cost. He discarded his shirt and cap and satisfied himself with a loin cloth. This was due to the fact that India in those days did not produce enough cloth, especially hand-spun and hand-woven, to satisfy the minimum needs of the people. Also, this loin cloth was meant to be his identification with the poor. Other restrictions of this nature were imposed because he wanted his entire life to be devoted to the service of humanity. It is a fact that not only public workers fighting for a cause, but all original thinkers and serious workers in any field of life’s activity must and do limit their physical wants. Only in a Philistine age, which needs constant excitement and believes in the multiplication of physical wants as a mark of culture, will Gandhiji’s life of simple living and high thinking be considered ascetic.

Gandhiji and Religion Part-1 By J.B. Kripalani Gandhiji was not a philosopher or a theoretician who developed his theories and evolved a system which would give a rational explanation of life and its different facets and, if possible, its ultimate goal. If one wants to understand Gandhiji’s life and work, one must try to understand his spiritual ideas and ideals in the light of which he conducted his struggles against group injustice and tyranny and carried out his reform programmes. Gandhiji’s ideas grew and developed as he had to face practical situations and find solutions to problems which confronted him throughout his life. The establishment of British rule in India led to a review of existing ideas, ideals and institutions. The first impact of this contact was naturally in the religious field. This was because most of the ideas, ideals and institutions in India were, more or less, connected with religion. The result of this was the rise of new reformist sects like the Brahmo Samaj and the Prarthana Samaj. Along with the growth of these reformist sects, there were also movements within the orthodox Hindu fold to interpret andrestate the basic doctrines of Hinduism. This resulted in the establishment of the Arya Samaj and the interpretation of Hinduism by Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Vivekananda, Ramatirtha and the Theosophical movement under the lead of Mrs. Annie Besant. This spiritual ferment was confined to Hindu society, as the Hindusmore than any other major community in India had taken to the new system of education introduced after the advent of British rule. Gandhiji was brought up, as we have said before, in a religious atmosphere. He belonged to a Vaishnavite Hindu family influenced to some extent by Jainism. His mother was a devout woman. His father often invited the learned of different faiths to discuss religious problems. In England his insistence on vegetarian diet brought him into contact with such idealist Englishmen as had given up meat diet and had become vegetarians. He also came under the influence of the Liberal thought in England of the 19th century. He had made a study of the Bible, especially the New Testament. He had also made himself familiar with the writings of Tolstoy and Emerson. In South Africa he had to work among people of many nations, races and colours. He came in contact there with Christian missionaries. Some of them were anxious to save his soul by converting him to the True Faith, Christianity. Others were not concerned so much with his soul as with the work that he wascarrying on there for the uplift of his countrymen who had become citizens of South Africa. All these contacts confirmed him in his own faith, Hinduism. But his Hinduism had little to do with, its forms or ceremonials and the institutions that it had created within itself. He rejected everything that was against reason and against humanity. Though he loved to call himself an orthodox Hindu, he did not subscribe to the pernicious and cruel system of untouchability. He did not believe in the caste system as it prevailed in India. About this he says : “God did not create men with the badge of superiority or inferiority; no scripture which labels a human being as inferior or untouchable because of his or her birth can command our allegiance. It is a denial of God and Truth which is God.” He did not observe Hindu ceremonials or holy days. He rarely visited temples except sometimes through courtesy. Even then he would not enter a temple which was not open to the untouchables whom he called Harijans. He thought image worship and going to the temples were good for those who needed such props to their faith. His Hinduism was based on the teachings of the Upanishads and the Gita. Like other great reformers in Hinduism he wrote a commentary on the Gita. He moulded his life in accordance with the basic teachings of this scripture. He was a karmayogi, as described in the Gita. In accordance with its teachings he held that good works must be performed in the spirit of sacrifice to the God of humanity, especially in serving daridranarayan, God of the poor and the downtrodden. He says: “I am endeavouring to see God through service of humanity, for I know that God is neither in heaven, nor down below, but in everyone.” He also says that whenever in difficulty he had recourse to the Gita and it was the solace of his life. He held that through work, done as sacrifice, without attachment, and without hankering after desired results and with equanimity, one could get the summum bonum of life, “salvation” or as he often said in accordance with the best thought of Hinduism, “self-realization”. About this he says: “Man’s ultimate aim is the realization of God, and all his activities, political, social and religious, have to be guided by the ultimate aim of the vision of God. The immediate service of all human beings becomes a necessary part of the endeavour simply because the only way to find God is to see Him in His creation and be one with it. This can only be done by service of all.” For Gandhiji religion and morality were the same. They were interchangeable terms. This was natural for a karmayogi, who has to act in every sphere of life. Gandhiji did not believe that religious activity was separate from other activities of life, which kept society together. For him the basic principles, of this morality were truth and non-violence. These two principles were elaborated into eleven principles and a verse containing them was recited morning and evening at his prayers. These are: Ahimsa, satya, asteya, brahmacharya, asangraha, sharir shrama, aswada, sarvatra-bhaya-varjana, sarvadharma-samanatva, swadeshi, sparsh bhavana (non-violence, truth, non-stealing, chastity, non-possession, physical labour, control of the palate, fearlessness, equality of all religions, swadeshi, discarding of untouchability). The first five of these are the basic moral principles of Hinduism and Jainism. The six others are their derivatives suited to the requirements of the times. Believing in fundamental moral values common to all the great religions of the world, he said he had nothing new to give to the world. “Truth and non-violence are as old as the hills.” He often said that he had no desire to create a new sect. As a matter of fact, sects are generally created not by prophets and reformers but by their followers, Christ said : I have not come to destroy the Law but to fulfil it.” It can, therefore, be said that Christ was not the first Christian. However, a law can only be entirely fulfilled when it is extended and enlarged to embrace the whole of humanity. Whatever Gandhiji might have said, all those of the present generation and the innumerable generations to come who follow Gandhiji’s ideas and ideals in their spirit are truly his followers. In this who knows, as Christ said, “the first shall be the last and the last first?” With the Gita he also believed that all religions are different paths leading to the same goal. He says : “Religions are different roads converging upon the same point. What does it matter that we take different roads, so long as we reach the same goal ? In reality, there are as many religions as there are individuals. So long as there are different religions, every one of them may need some distinctive symbol. But when the symbol is made into a fetish and an instrument of proving the superiority of one’s religion over others’, it is fit only to be discarded.” He was, therefore, tolerant of all religions, nay, he accepted their fundamental teachings. These regulated men in performing their daily tasks, which must be guided by the basic principles of morality. The moral principles were the same in all the great religions of the world, Gandhiji says: I believe in the fundamental truth of all great religions of the world. I believe that they are all God-given, and I believe that they were necessary for the people to whom these religions were revealed. And I believe that, if only we could all of us read the scriptures of the different faiths from the standpoint of the followers of those faiths, we should find that they were at the bottom all one and were all helpful to one another.” Though he believed that all religions were true, he did not consider them as infallible. They were the creation of men and therefore had something of their imperfection. He says: “After long study and experience, I have come to the conclusion that (1) all religions are true; (2) all religions have error in them.” He further says: “I do not believe in the exclusive divinity of the Vedas. I believe the Bible, the Koran and the Zend Avesta to be as much divinely inspired as the Vedas. My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired. I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense.” Gandhiji, as we have said, made no difference between religion and morality. Dharma, not as popularly understood now but as it was understood and used by the ancient Rishis, must inform and guide all our activities. “Dharma” means that which supports. As Gandhiji believed in the basic teachings of all the great religions of the world, he with his co-religionists did not believe in proselytizing activity. In his Ashram there were Muslims and Christians and pandits, but he never tried to convert them to Hinduism or even to his own brand of Hinduism. One day Mirabehn expressed a desire to become a Hindu. Gandhiji’s reply was that she should live in her own faith. By becoming a Hindu, she would not, in any way, improve her moral conduct or values. It was not necessary for a person to change his religion but to act according to the basic principles of his or her own religion. It was necessary for a Hindu to be a good Hindu, as it was necessary for a Muslim to be a good Muslim and a Christian to be a good Christian. Speaking to Christian priests in India, he told them that the humanitarian work that they did was good; but it would diminish its value if it was done with the motive of converting the followers of other faiths to Christianity. He says : “I do not believe in people telling others of their faith, especially with a view to conversion. Faith does not admit of telling. It has to be lived and then it becomes self-propagating. He did not think that religion was to be practised in a cave or on a mountain-top. It must manifest itself in all the actions of man in society. He says : “I do not conceive religion as one of the many activities of mankind. The same activity may be governed by the spirit either of religion or of irreligion. There is no such thing for me therefore as leaving politics for religion. For me every tiniest activity is governed by what I consider to be my religion.”

प्रेम और न्याय की यात्रा: गांधी ने मार्टिन लूथर किंग जूनियर को कैसे प्रेरित किया मैं जो खोज रहा था, सामाजिक क्रांति का वह तरीका मुझे गांधी के विश्लेषण में मिला -मार्टिन लूथर किंग जूनियर रमेश शर्मा मार्टिन लूथर किंग जूनियर ने मई 1958 में एक किताब लिखी ‘Stride Towards Freedom’ जो हिंदी में ‘आजादी की मंज़िलें’ नाम से उपलब्ध है. अनुवाद किया है सतीश कुमार ने. भारत में यह किताब 1966 में प्रकाशित हुई. इसमें किंग ने एक बड़े सत्याग्रह की कहानी लिखी, जो गोरों और कालों के बीच भेदभाव बरतने वाली व्यवस्था के बदलाव की कहानी है. उन्होंने लिखा कि यह मेरे व्यक्तिगत विचार हैं। पचास हजार नीग्रो लोगों ने अपने हृदय में अहिंसा के सिद्धांत को अपनाकर मॉण्टगोमरी की यह कहानी रची. वे लिखते हैं- “यह उनकी कहानी है, जिन्होंने प्रेम के शस्त्र से अपने अधिकारों की लड़ाई लड़ने का अभ्यास किया। यह उनकी कहानी है, जिन्होंने मानवीय दृष्टि से स्वयं अपना ही मूल्यांकन करना सीखा। यह उन नीग्रो नेताओं की कहानी है, जिनके सिद्धांत और विश्वास अलग-अलग थे, पर जो न्याय एवं वास्तविक अधिकारों के लिए एकसूत्र में बंध गये थे। यह उन संघर्षशील नीग्रो कार्यकर्ताओं की कहानी है, जिनमें बहुत से प्रौढ़ अवस्था को भी पार कर चुके थे, फिर भी जो इस आन्दोलन को सफल करने के लिए दस-दस, बारह-बारह मील पैदल चलते थे और जिन्होंने रंगभेद के सामने समर्पण करने की अपेक्षा साल भर तक पैदल चलने के कष्ट को बेहतर माना। यह उन नीग्रो लोगों की कहानी है, जो बहुत गरीब थे, अशिक्षित थे, फिर भी जिन्होंने रंगभेद-विरोधी आन्दोलन के महत्त्व को हृदयंगम कर लिया था। यह उन वृद्ध महिलाओं की कहानी है, जिनमें से एक ने कहा कि “भले ही मेरे पैर थककर चूर हो गये हैं, पर मेरी आत्मा को सुख मिल रहा है।” यह उन रंगभेदवादी श्वेतांग नागरिकों की कहानी है, जिन्होंने हर कीमत पर मानवमात्र की समानता का विरोध किया, साथ ही यह उन उदार श्वेतांग नागरिकों की भी कहानी है, जिन्होंने नीग्रो लोगों के साथ कन्धे से कन्धा मिलाकर अन्यायपूर्ण रंगभेद का साहस के साथ विरोध किया।” विश्व में हुए अहिंसक आन्दोलनों में इसका महत्त्वपूर्ण स्थान है। हम सभी को इससे प्रेरणा मिल सकती है। हम इससे अनेक सबक सीख सकते हैं। शांति, अहिंसा, लोकतंत्रात्मक प्रयास, जन शक्ति, संकल्प, समर्पण, समझदारी, मानवीय संवेदना, सत्य, सत्याग्रह को जानने, समझने, सीखने-सिखाने, अपनाने में इस आन्दोलन की कहानी मददगार साबित हो सकती है। हमारे लिए यह जानना महत्वपूर्ण है कि इस आन्दोलन पर हमारे राष्ट्रपिता बापू के विचारों का भी बड़ा प्रभाव रहा, जिसके कारण मार्टिन लूथर किंग जूनियर को अमेरिका के गांधी के रूप में देखा गया। गांधी जी की तरह उनकी भी हत्या की गई। गांधी जी को अपनी छाती पर गोलियां सहनी पड़ी और किंग को बम धमाके से समाप्त किया गया। सत्य, अहिंसा, सत्याग्रह का सफल प्रयोग दोनों के द्वारा किया गया। मार्टिन लूथर किंग ने स्वयं लिखा कि “एक रविवार की दोपहर को मैं हॉवर्ड विश्वविद्यालय के अध्यक्ष मोदेंकाई जानसन का प्रवचन सुनने के लिए फिलाडेल्फिया गया। वे वहां पर फिलाडेल्फिया के फेलोशिप हाउस के लिए व्याख्यान देने वाले थे। डॉ जानसन हाल ही में भारत की यात्रा करके लौटे थे और मेरे लिए बड़ी दिलचस्पी की बात यह थी कि वे महात्मा गांधी के जीवन और विचारों के संबंध में बोले। उनका व्याख्यान इतना प्रभावोत्पादक और बिजली की तरह झकझोर देने वाला था कि सभा समाप्त होते ही मैंने गांधी के जीवन और काम के संबंध में आधा दर्जन पुस्तकें खरीद डालीं। बहुत से और लोगों की तरह मैंने भी गांधी का नाम सुना था, लेकिन उनके संबंध में गम्भीरता से कभी अध्धयन नहीं किया था। जब मैंने उनके संबंध में पुस्तकें पढ़ीं, तो उनके अहिंसात्मक और प्रतिकारमूलक आन्दोलनों से मैं सम्मोहित हो गया। खासतौर से नमक सत्याग्रह के लिए की गयी उनकी यात्रा और उनके अनेक उपवास की बातों से मैं बहुत ही प्रभावित हुआ। सत्याग्रह का पूरा विचार मेरे लिए अत्यन्त असाधारण महत्त्व का था। ज्यों ही मैंने गांधी- दर्शन में गहरा गोता लगाया, त्यों ही प्रेम की शक्ति के बारे में संदेह दूर होने लगे और मैं पहली बार यह अच्छी तरह देख सका कि सामाजिक सुधारों के क्षेत्र में प्रेम के सिद्धांत का प्रभावशाली उपयोग हो सकता है। गांधी को पढ़ने के पहले मैं इस नतीजे पर लगभग पहुंच चुका था कि ईसामसीह के सिद्धांत केवल व्यक्तिगत संबंधों तक ही प्रभावकारी हो सकते हैं। ‘अगर तुम्हारे एक गाल पर कोई थप्पड़ मारता है तो दूसरा गाल आगे कर दो’ और ‘अपने दुश्मनों से भी प्यार करो’ का आदर्श केवल तभी उपयोगी हो सकता था, जब संघर्ष एक दो व्यक्तियों के बीच ही सीमित हो, लेकिन गांधी-साहित्य पढ़ने के बाद मैंने देखा कि मैं कितना गलत था। गांधी शायद इतिहास का पहला व्यक्ति था, जिसने ईसामसीह के प्रेम के संदेश को दो व्यक्तियों केबीच से ऊपर उठाकर उसे व्यापक पैमाने पर शक्तिशाली तथा प्रभावकारी सामाजिक शस्त्र बनाया। गांधी के लिए प्रेम एक ऐसा शक्तिशाली हथियार था, जिसके द्वारा सामाजिक और सामूहिक जीवन में क्रांतिकारी परिवर्तन लाया जा सकता है। मैं जिस चीज को महीनों से खोज रहा था, सामाजिक क्रांति का वह तरीका मुझे गांधीवादी प्रेम और अहिंसा के विश्लेषण में प्राप्त हुआ। जैसा बौद्धिक और आध्यात्मिक संतोष मुझे गांधी के अहिंसात्मक प्रतिकार के सिद्धांत में प्राप्त हुआ, वैसा बेंथम और मिल के उपयोगितावाद (युटीलिटेरियनिज्म) में, अथवा मार्क्स और लेनिन के क्रांतिकारी साम्यवाद में, अथवा हॉब्स (Hobbes) के सामाजिक समझौतावाद (सोशियल-कंट्राक्ट्स थ्योरी) में अथवा रूसो के ‘प्रकृति की ओर’ वाले आशावाद में, अथवा नीत्शे के अतिमानववाद (सुपरमैन फिलोसफी) में भी प्राप्त करने में मैं असफल रहा था। मैं यह अनुभव करने लगा कि शोषित जन-समुदाय के पास आजादी के संघर्ष के लिए गांधी का तरीका ही एक नैतिक और व्यावहारिक दृष्टि से पक्का तरीक़ा है। अहिंसा मेरे लिए केवल बौद्धिक तर्क-वितर्क का विषय नहीं रह गयी थी, बल्कि एक जीवन-पद्धति के रूप में मैं उसके साथ बंध गया था। अहिंसात्मक प्रतिकार कायर लोगों द्वारा इस्तेमाल किया जाने वाला तरीक़ा नहीं है, बल्कि इसमें प्रतिकार की महान शक्ति निहित है। अगर कोई व्यक्ति अहिंसा के तरीकों का इस्तेमाल भयभीत होकर अथवा हिंसात्मक साधनों के अभाव में करता है, तो वह अहिंसक नहीं है। गांधी ने कहा है कि अगर हिंसा का विकल्प कायरता ही है, तो उस कायरता की अपेक्षा हिंसा अथवा लड़ना ही बेहतर है। समुदाय किसी भी गलत साधन के सम्मुख आत्मसमर्पण नहीं करे। अहिंसा का विरोध बुराई की शक्तियों पर होता है, न कि उन व्यक्तियों पर जो संयोग से उस बुराई के आचरण में फंसे हुए हैं। हमारे शहर में असली तनाव गोरों और कालों के बीच नहीं है, बल्कि न्याय और अन्याय के बीच में है, प्रकाश और अंधकार की शक्तियों के बीच है। इसलिए विजय न्याय और प्रकाश की शक्तियों की होगी न कि नीग्रो लोगों की। इस विचार को मानने वाला बदला लेने की भावना के बिना हर तरह की तकलीफों को सहन करने के लिए तैयार रहता है। वह अपने प्रतिपक्षी से, बिना बदले में चोट पहुंचाये ही, चोटें बरदाश्त करने की भी तैयारी रखता है। अहिंसक हिंसा नहीं करता। बुनियादी महत्त्व की चीजें केवल तर्क-वितर्क से प्राप्त नहीं की जा सकती, बल्कि वे अनेक कष्ट सहन करने के माध्यम से ही खरीदी जा सकती है। ऐसा गांधी ने कहा है। प्रतिपक्षी का हृदय बदलने के लिए वन्य-न्याय से ज्यादा शक्तिशाली उपाय है। अहिंसा के दर्शन के केन्द्र में प्रेम का सिद्धांत निहित है।” देश-दुनिया में ऐसे अनेक उदाहरण हमारे सामने है। इनको याद करने, देखने, समझने, सोचने, जानने, अपनाने, इनसे मार्गदर्शन, प्रेरणा, सबक लेने की आज नितांत आवश्यकता महसूस हो रही है। भगवान, प्रकृति हमें शक्ति, साहस, सद्बुद्धि प्रदान करे। आओ मिलकर सोचें समझें।

यह लेख महात्मा गांधी और माँ आनंदमयी के बीच हुई मुलाकातों और उनके संबंधों पर आधारित है। इसमें उनके विचारों, मुलाकातों, और उनके व्यक्तिगत और आध्यात्मिक अनुभवों का वर्णन किया गया है।

हेमंत हुकूमत की परिभाषा और गांधीजी का आत्मनिरीक्षण गांधीजी ने असहयोग आंदोलन के दौरान एक महत्वपूर्ण सवाल उठाया कि क्या हमें ‘अंग्रेज दबंगों की सेवकई’ के बदले ‘भारतीय सेवकों की